Protein in nutritional support: the newborn hero for the critically ill?

Article

Reference

Protein in nutritional support: the newborn hero for the critically ill?

OSHIMA, Taku, HEIDEGGER, Claudia Paula, PICHARD, Claude

Abstract

In their current review, Weijs and colleagues highlight the importance of protein and amino acid provision for improving clinical outcome in critically ill patients. The interdependence between energy and protein is highlighted. They call for urgent research to develop new methods to evaluate protein and amino acid requirements, accurately and conveniently, in order to optimize nutrition support for critically ill patients.

OSHIMA, Taku, HEIDEGGER, Claudia Paula, PICHARD, Claude. Protein in nutritional support:

the newborn hero for the critically ill? Critical Care , 2014, vol. 18, no. 6, p. 592

DOI : 10.1186/s13054-014-0592-z PMID : 25672435

Available at:

http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:74225

Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.

1 / 1

COMMENTARY

Protein in nutritional support: the newborn hero for the critically ill?

Taku Oshima¹, Claudia P Heidegger²and Claude Pichard^1*

See related review by Weijs et al., http://ccforum.com/content/18/6/591

Abstract

In their current review, Weijs and colleagues highlight the importance of protein and amino acid provision for improving clinical outcome in critically ill patients.

The interdependence between energy and protein is highlighted. They call for urgent research to develop new methods to evaluate protein and amino acid requirements, accurately and conveniently, in order to optimize nutrition support for critically ill patients.

Appropriate nutrition delivery for critically ill patients remains a highly debated issue. Energy, a critical factor for life, was until now the superstar of nutrition support.

It now faces a rival or, more correctly, a partner in function, namely protein. This is a chance to take a close look at protein, the new hero in the field of critical care nutrition, and the struggles it encounters in becoming the true superstar.

In their current review, Weijs and colleagues [1] high- light the importance of protein and amino acid provision for critically ill patients, the combination of which for adequate energy provision has been shown by an increas- ing number of studies.

Providing nutrition support for critically ill patients is generally recommended as a standard of care. This ap- proach is confirmed by recent studies which demonstrated the benefits of early and adequate nutrition support, whenever possible by the enteral route. The nutrition tar- get is often defined as calculated calories/kg body weight per day, or measured by indirect calorimetry. But what about the protein target and its measurement?

Disturbances of protein metabolism are observed as a physiologic response to stress, and are reflected by important nitrogen loss and muscle wasting which are

* Correspondence:claude.pichard@unige.ch

1Nutrition Unit, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva 14 1211, Switzerland Full list of author information is available at the end of the article

proportional to the severity of illness. Amino acid ad- ministration acts as a main signal for protein synthesis in healthy conditions, but does not reduce protein break- down [2]. This signal is blunted in critically ill patients due to anabolic resistance [3]. Ishibashi and colleagues [4]

suggested that protein catabolism over a 10-day period soon after ICU admission was reduced by 50% when pro- tein intake increased and allowed a reduction of muscle loss of 1.1 to 1.5 g/kg of dry fat-free mass/day (that is, lean tissue without water content). A higher level of protein in- take (1.9 g/kg/day) did not confer any additional protein- sparing advantage, and 1.2 g/kg/day was suggested as the optimum dose. These suggestions for protein intake level of at least 1.2 g/kg/day are in accordance with the current recommendations [5,6]. On the other hand, a previous study by Weijs and colleagues [7] suggested that protein intake of 1.5 g/kg/day improves clinical outcome. Indeed, a number of contradictory studies have resulted in varia- tions of the recommended protein provision over the past decades. In the 1970s, provision as high as 3.5 g/kg was recommended [8], but this was then reduced to 1.2 g/kg/

day by 2006 [9]. During the same period, the recom- mended provision of calories has decreased from 40 to 45 to 20 to 30 kcal/kg/day. It is likely that such a decrease in energy administration has an impact on protein needs, be- cause energy deficit increases proteolysis to fuel obligatory gluconeogenesis. Currently, there is a trend among experts to increase daily protein provision up to 1.5 to 1.8 g/kg/

day, and to reconsider the protein/energy ratio to optimize the respective amounts of protein and energy adminis- tered [10]. Robust data are still lacking to support final recommendations. The importance of both components was shown recently by Weijs and colleagues [7], demon- strating that the achievement of defined protein and en- ergy targets was associated with a 50% decrease in 28-day mortality in mechanically ventilated patients, whereas reaching only the energy target did not impact mortality.

Apart from highly contributing to the gross mass of body protein, amino acids are signaling molecules in a

© 2014 Oshima et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. The licensee has exclusive rights to distribute this article, in any medium, for 12 months following its publication. After this time, the article is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Oshimaet al. Critical Care2014,18:592 http://ccforum.com/content/18/6/592

number of cellular processes, including those related to stress-related catabolism. This implies that not only the amount of amino acid but also their composition profile is important. It should be recalled that muscle wasting and protein loss during the acute phase of critical ill- nesses could only be mitigated by adequate and optimal supplementation of amino acids, along with energy and micronutrients.

Optimal nutrition for critically ill patients through the enteral route, though it is strongly recommended in re- cent guidelines, is difficult in some patients as gastro- intestinal tolerance limits the rate of administration and absorption. For instance, diarrhea is commonly observed in critically ill patients and strongly associated with anti- biotics, as well as with enteral nutrition if covering more than 60% of energy needs [11]. This frequently limits the prescription of full enteral nutrition support. In such cases, exclusive parenteral nutrition [12], supplemental parenteral nutrition [13] or a specific administration of amino acids to supplement enterally administered pro- tein may be a therapeutic option. Nutrients administered through the enteral route must be digested, a process which increases the energy and oxygen demand of the intestine, which in turn increases splanchnic blood flow [14]. This effect may not be tolerated by very hemodyna- mically unstable patients.

The recommendations for protein provision in guide- lines [5,6] are derived from expert opinion, rather than from robust scientific evidence. This situation mostly results from the complexity and the costs of measuring protein synthesis and degradation, and the current lack of analytical methods that can obtain results sufficiently rapidly to enable the prescription of nutrition support to be altered appropriately. Weijs and colleagues give a great overview of the complexity involved in assessing protein and specific amino acid requirements, and point out the interdependence between energy and protein provision. We join their call for urgent research to develop new methods to evaluate protein and amino acid require- ments, accurately and conveniently, in order to optimize nutrition support for critically ill patients.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author details

1Nutrition Unit, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva 14 1211, Switzerland.

2Department of Anaesthesiology, Pharmacology and Intensive Care, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva 14 1211, Switzerland.

References

1. Weijs PJM, Cynober L, DeLegge M, Kreymann G, Wernerman J, Wolfe RR:

Proteins and amino acids are fundamental to optimal nutrition support in critically ill patients.Crit Care2014. doi:10.1186/s13054-014-0591-0.

2. Biolo G, Toigo G, Ciocchi B, Situlin R, Iscra F, Gullo A, Guarnieri G:

Metabolic response to injury and sepsis: changes in protein metabolism.

Nutrition1997,13:52S–57S.

3. Rennie M:Anabolic resistance in critically ill patients.Crit Care Med2009, 37:S398–S399.

4. Ishibashi N, Plank LD, Sando K, Hill GL:Optimal protein requirements during the first 2 weeks after the onset of critical illness.Crit Care Med 1998,26:1529–1535.

5. Singer P, Berger MM, Van den Berghe G, Biolo G, Calder P, Forbes A, Griffiths R, Kreyman G, Leverve X, Pichard C, ESPEN:ESPEN Guidelines on parenteral nutrition: intensive care.Clin Nutr2009,28:387–400.

6. McClave SA, Martindale RG, Vanek VW, McCarthy M, Roberts P, Taylor B, Ochoa JB, Napolitano L, Cresci G, A.S.P.E.N. Board of Directors; American College of Critical Care Medicine; Society of Critical Care Medicine:

Guidelines for the provision and assessment of nutrition support therapy in the adult critically ill patient: Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.).JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr2009,33:277–316.

7. Weijs PJM, Stapel SN, de Groot SD, Driessen RH, de Jong E, Girbes AR, Strack van Schijndel RJ, Beishuizen A:Optimal protein and energy nutrition decreases mortality in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients: a prospective observational cohort study.JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr2012,36:60–68.

8. Hoffer LJ, Bistrian BR:Appropriate protein provision in critical illness: a systematic review and narrative review.Am J Clin Nutr2012,96:591–600.

9. Sauerwein HP, Strack van Schijndel RJ:Perspective: How to evaluate studies on perioperative nutrition? Considerations about the definition of optimal nutrition for patients and its key role in the comparison of the results of studies on nutritional intervention.Clin Nutr2007, 26:154–158.

10. Kreymann G, DeLegge MH, Luft G, Hise ME, Zaloga GP:The ratio of energy expenditure to nitrogen loss in diverse patient groups - a systematic review.Clin Nutr2012,31:168–175.

11. Thibault R, Graf S, Clerc A, Delieuvin N, Heidegger CP, Pichard C:

Diarrhoea in the intensive care unit: respective contribution of feeding and antibiotics.Crit Care2013,17:R153.

12. Doig GS, Simpson F, Sweetman EA, Finfer SR, Cooper DJ, Heighes PT, Davies AR, O'Leary M, Solano T, Peake S, Early PN Investigators of the ANZICS Clinical Trials Group:Early parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients with short-term relative contraindications to early enteral nutrition: a randomized controlled trial.JAMA2013,309:2130–2138.

13. Heidegger CP, Berger MM, Graf S, Zingg W, Darmon P, Costanza MC, Thibault R, Pichard C:Optimization of energy provision with

supplemental parenteral nutrition (SPN) improves the clinical outcome of critically ill patients: a randomized controlled trial.Lancet2013, 381:385–393.

14. Gatt M, MacFie J, Anderson A, Howell G, Reddy B, Suppiah A, Renwick I, Mitchell CJ:Changes in superior mesenteric artery blood flow after oral, enteral, and parenteral feeding in humans.Crit Care Med2009, 37:171–176.

doi:10.1186/s13054-014-0592-z

Cite this article as:Oshimaet al.:Protein in nutritional support: the newborn hero for the critically ill?Critical Care201418:592.

Oshimaet al. Critical Care2014,18:592 Page 2 of 2

http://ccforum.com/content/18/6/592